I had my own C&P exam a few months ago and I also was a radiation guy. (For those who don't know, "C&P exam" stands for "Compensation and Pension Exam," the VA's follow up exam following treatment for PCa, or any ailment actually, to determine the veteran's current status and any continued eligibility for benefits).
During the exam the examiner also told me I would be classed as "in remission." I was entirely prepared to accept that since my own string of PSA tests following RT have all been undetectable and the examiner knew that. But out of curiosity I asked how the "in remission" decision would be made in a case where the post-treatment PSA's weren't as good as they were in my case.
She then said that it was irrelevant, since it was VA policy to make the assumption that all
cancer cases were cured following treatment. Of course that seemed a bit odd and I asked her to explain. She said that all it meant was that if the veteran's PCa was indeed still present, or had recurred, then the burden of proof that this was the case was now on the veteran.
It was then the veteran
who would then have to prove this by submitting new paperwork that his cancer was still around.
The VA is not in the business of accepting a definition of "cancer cured," I believe because of the controversy that would ensue first of all if they did try to frame such a definition, and because, I personally believe, they do not wish to hem themselves in by asserting a particular definition of cancer "cure" that would then subject them to complaints of having an inadequate definition, one that was declaring vets cured of cancer when clearly they were not.
So the VA has criteria for agreeing that a vet has cancer
, but none agreeing that he or she has been cured
Or, perhaps it could be said that the VA has an "invisible" definition of cancer cure: as long as the vet can submit documentation proving that he does have cancer, then he does; but when he can no longer submit such documentation, then, by virtue of the absence of said documentation, he is considered "cured."
A bit bureaucratic I suppose, but such is what I was told.
Chronic prostatitis (age 60 on)
BPH w/ urinary obstruction, 6/2011
Ongoing high PSA, 7/2011-12/2011
Biopsy, 12/2011: positive 3/12 (90%, 70%, 5%)
Gleason 6(3+3), T1c
No mets, PCa likely still organ contained
IMRT w/ HT (Lupron), 4/2012-6/2012
PSA (08/03/2012): <0.1
PSA (12/07/2012): <0.1
PSA (04/11/2013): <0.1
PSA (10/17/2013): <0.1
Post Edited (81GyGuy) : 3/19/2014 8:38:39 PM (GMT-6)